You may say what you want, Pluto is a planet. And so are the trans-Neptunian spherical objects.
Yup,
>2016 letting a black guy deciding something of scientific importance
I predict that the scientific community will eventualy reclassify Pluto as a planet.
>>8093083
Does it really matter how these things are classified?
A sphere rolls the same regardless of its name
>>8093178
Will any of you fuckers ever remember what balls are
>>8093201
Fuck taxa
>>8093116
>I predict that the scientific community will eventualy reclassify Pluto as a planet.
I guess we'd have like 30 planets then.
>>8093178
>Does it really matter how these things are classified?
Yes, as a matter of fact it actually does.
>>8093116
The 'scientific community' has acknowledged that the solar system is far larger and more complex than what we knew 25 years ago.
>>8093232
>30 or more planets
What's wrong with that?
>>8093442
I prefer 12.
>>8093446
>makemake
Why do we let Asia name anything?
>>8093452
Not even close.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makemake_(deity)
>>8093423
Nope. It is irrelevant.
The object known as Pluto will remain the same regardless of what we decide to call it.
>>8093524
I'm rather glad someone agrees with me
>>8093423
Calling it a planet is just an easy way to generalize natural satellites that hold a volume similar or greater to that of earth
The name Pluto is to express our fondness of romans, the name was suggested by a child anyway. It has very little meaning as a name. This can be said for most celestial bodies(hence why people are allowed to "buy" and name a star)
The scientific community is not shaken by the idea that we will call it a planet. This information only makes textbooks outdated and gives amature astronomy fans something to talk about.
"Planet" is a social construct.
>>8093116
>black guy deciding something of scientific importance
It was decided by a vote of the IAU, not "le black science man"
>>8093232
>I guess we'd have like 30 planets then.
>>8093442
>What's wrong with that?
What's wrong is the IAU would have to admit they don't know how many planets there are, since presumably many TNO's are still undiscovered.
>>8093446
>I prefer 12.
8 current planets, plus the 5 you show makes 13
>>8093883
>the name was suggested by a child anyway
Wellll....
Astronomers wanted to name it Pluto after Percival Lowell, but that seemed inappropriate.
So they held a contest, and just picked Pluto as the winning entry.
>>8094194
>"Planet" is a social construct.
All definitions are.
Giraffes are naturally occurring animals.
"Giraffe" is a social construct.
>>8093427
This
>>8093883
>Calling it a planet is just an easy way to generalize natural satellites that hold a volume similar or greater to that of earth
'Planet' has a definition, you are promoting ignorance for the sake of semantics.
>The name Pluto is to express our fondness of romans, the name was suggested by a child anyway. It has very little meaning as a name. This can be said for most celestial bodies(hence why people are allowed to "buy" and name a star)
This has no relevance to Pluto being a dwarf planet.
>The scientific community is not shaken by the idea that we will call it a planet.
Why would they be shaken by a handfull of holdouts?
>This information only makes textbooks outdated and gives amature astronomy fans something to talk about.
Just as figuring out the Earth revolved around the Sun did.
>>8093524
Correct, Pluto will never be a planet no matter what name it is called.
>>8094381
Too bad all of those in the kupier belt are probably just dusty rocks with no significant features.
Ceres is the only good one and that's in the asteroid belt
>>8094388
Linguistics is pointless
How we define a rock does not affect the rock
The earth around the sun allowed us to understand the relationship between planets
Prior to that moment, everything revolved around the earth
Without this understanding, our notion of gravitational forces would be missing any relation to mass
The classification of Pluto only changes the definition of "planet"
It does not help us understand any planet, Pluto included
>>8094443
>It does not help us understand any planet, Pluto included
Besides the distinct orbital characteristics of dwarf planets, or the structure of the Kuiper belt, or how it formed, or even how we found the evidence for Planet Nine.
>>8094443
>Linguistics is pointless
Part of this whole thing that always bothered me is the term "dwarf planet".
A dwarf horse is still a horse.
A dwarf hamster is still a hamster.
A dwarf star is still a star.
But a dwarf planet?
Lol, nope. Not a planet.
AND Ceres, Pluto, etc don't fail planet status because of size.
In that sense, they're big enough to qualify as planets, they just fail because they aren't the only large objects in their orbits.
>>8094538
They fail because their orbit is dominated by a larger object, so yes their size is relevant.
>>8094842
>They fail because their orbit is dominated by a larger object, so yes their size is relevant.
I kinda see your point, but your wording is a little off.
Ceres is the largest asteroid.
Pluto + Charon is larger than any single Kuiper belt object found so far.
My point is the "dwarf" planets are all large enough to achieve hydro-static equilibrium, the "size" requirement for planets.
>>8094842
>their orbit is dominated by a larger object
We should call them "cuck planets"
>>8094853
Man, Becca was god-tier at that size. I wish she'd stop gaining weight.
>>8094851
>Ceres is the largest asteroid.
Dominated by Jupiter.
>Pluto + Charon is larger than any single Kuiper belt object found so far.
Dominated by Neptune.
Both are large enough to fit the size requirement, but are substantially smaller than the dominant object in their orbit. So the word dwarf is accurate.
>>8094851
>Pluto + Charon is larger than any single Kuiper belt object found so far.
Pluto is less massive than Eris.
Pluto is locked in 2:3 resonance with Neptune, it doesn't have an independent orbit.
no there not
>>8093083
The Pluto debate is stupid. Either call them all planets or none of them.
Yet nobody really gives a shit wether Haumea or Eris are called dwarf planets or full planets. What's with the obsession with Pluto? I hope this retardation will sort itself out once the generation that used to know Pluto as a planet is dead
>>8095028
But pluto and the other dwarf planets clearly fit a separate class of object. Calling them all planets is less constructive than distinguishing between them
>>8095028
Language evolves and classification is important for understanding. It IS relevant when there is a debate on holding language in the past where "planet" is only defineable as a finite list of specific objects.
>>8095028
>The mammal debate is stupid. Either call them all horses or none of them.
>>8094893
>Both are large enough to fit the size requirement
...and yet we call them "dwarfs".
That was the only point I was trying to make.
>>8094869
>Becca was god-tier at that size
What? This meat-mountain has a name?
>>8094926
>Pluto is less massive than Eris.
Yet Eris is smaller than "Pluto + Charon".
Which is probably why Pluto was found first.
>>8095239
>...and yet we call them "dwarfs".
>That was the only point I was trying to make.
You have an impressive capacity for selective reading.
>>8095239
>Yet Eris is smaller than "Pluto + Charon".
>Which is probably why Pluto was found first.
Eris has a much higher albedo than Pluto, Pluto was found first because it is significantly closer.
>>8093116
>2016
>racism
it is le happy happy thought that you just can deal with a black man being more intelligent than everyone in this board combined
>>8095590
Take the sjw cock out of your mouth, no one cares.
>>8095618
You apparently do, getting so butthurt about a meaningless classification.
>>8095627
That lack of reading comprehension.
>>8093442
Too many to remember for tests.
>>8095655
lmao that pic
>>8093083
Even though it's not classified as a planet anymore, it's still a beautiful little world...
>>8094842
If there weren't a large other object there wouldn't be an orbit. That's how orbits work.
>>8095563
>You have an impressive capacity for selective reading.
Yes, yes, yes...
Despite the fact that they meet the size requirement, they're still dwarfs compared to nearby Jupiter and Neptune.
This is somehow relevant because their orbits are affected by these giant planets.
But never mind that the IAU definition says "has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.", and doesn't mention orbital domination.
But somehow *I* moved the goalposts.
Sure.
>>8095563
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet#Criticism
Stern has asserted: "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there."[43]
>>8093083
>>8093116
NASA and their fake model planets. How can people still fall for their tall stories?
>>8093083
so every little cum drop in the international space station is a planet containing life?
good news guys
>>8096179
>This is somehow relevant because their orbits are affected by these giant planets.
Yes, if they were not a fraction ofthe size they would not be dominated.
>But never mind that the IAU definition says "has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.", and doesn't mention orbital domination.
wew lad
>a planet will have "cleared the neighbourhood" of its own orbital zone, meaning it has become gravitationally dominant, and there are no other bodies of comparable size other than its satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence.
>>8096181
That intentional misrepresentation of what clearing an orbit means.
CLEARING
>>8096549
THE
>>8093452
That's the creator god of the Easter Islanders.
How uncultured can you be?
>>8096554
NEIGHBORHOOD
>>8096556
AROUND
>>8096560
ITS
>>8096574
ORBIT
>>8095173
Underrated post that should have ended this debate.
>>8095173
>The mammal debate is stupid.
taxonomy is stupid though.
>>8093116
>2016 letting a black guy deciding something of scientific importance
Is this a Mike Brown joke?
>>8093427
will need to be updated with planet 9 soon
>>8096935
It is an old image anyway, and it would have to be zoomed out to get Planet Nine's expected perihelion in frame.
>>8096930
I think he means this black guy.
the IAUs definition is fucked, everyone knows that
only 10% of the people voted on it anyways cause almost everyone had left the convention when they did this crucial vote
"a planet needs to have 'cleared its neighborhood'" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean considering nothing has "cleared its neighborhood" of all bodies
1000km or greater diameter is a much better and simpler rule
>>8097305
>I have no idea what I am talking about but feel my opinion has value.
>>8094209
>IAU has to admit they don't know something
Well shit, we can't have that.
Perhaps if might push them harder to actually fully catalogue our system if they classed Pluto and similar as planets now
